Lawsuit on guns aimed at Gemme

In 2009, Ryan Shaughnessy applied for a Class A LTC (license to carry) in Worcester. The authorizing agent, Chief Gary Gemme, after making sure Mr. Shaughnessy met the basic qualifications to own and use a firearm, granted the license, but with a sporting restriction.

Mr. Shaughnessy could only use the license for lawful recreational shooting or competition, the pursuit of game animals and birds, personal protection in the home, and outdoor recreational activities — hiking, camping, cross-country skiing, or similar activities.

Given that a Class A LTC entitles the holder to possess and to carry openly or concealed firearms that include large-capacity firearms with feeding devices, the sporting restriction seems practical, but Mr. Shaughnessy, with the help of the National Rifle Association, is suing Chief Gemme in U.S. District Court, contending that the restriction prevents him from using handguns for self protection, and thus infringes on his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The suit, which includes five other plaintiffs against three other police chiefs in the state, is being argued by lawyer David D. Jensen of New York, and who was involved in December’s successful bid by gun rights’ groups to get the 7th Circuit Court to overturn Illinois’ ban on carrying concealed weapons.

The Massachusetts case is a bit different, as Illinois is the only state with an outright ban on carrying a concealed weapon. For example, the holder of a Class A LTC can carry a loaded handgun openly or in concealment in Massachusetts. The holder of a Class B LTC can carry a loaded handgun openly, but cannot conceal it.

The similarity between the two states, according to Mr. Jensen, is that both “concern the use of a gun for self protection.”

Winning this case in Massachusetts, however, might seem an uphill battle, considering that state law allows the local authorizing agent to restrict the possession, use and carrying of firearms, as they “deem proper.”

The state law appears to be the issue here, not the practice of the authorizing agents. But since the 11th Amendment prevents the plaintiffs from going after the state, Mr. Jensen said they are taking the customary route in such cases, going after the state actors, or the parties implementing the contested law.

Having participated in three such Second Amendment cases, Mr. Jensen anticipates the state’s general argument will be centered around public safety.

“It is exceedingly clear that states believe they have the right to put limitations on the use of firearms and the idea is to protect the public. Those (concerns) are valid reasons, but these restrictions, a sporting restriction for example, are not valid.”

An argument could be made that the Massachusetts law is too arbitrary, given that the roughly 351 authorizing agents in the state have taken various approaches to issuing licenses.

According to the suit, for example, about half of all the state localities generally issue unrestricted LTCs without restrictions to private citizens who request them.

Nevertheless, even in Worcester, which has four categories of license, sporting, target/hunting, employment and unrestricted, the number of unrestricted licenses issued far surpass those that are restricted.

According to Chief Gemme, there are about 3,800 Worcester residents, including some 400 law enforcement officials, licensed to carry a firearm. Only 760 have restrictions.

Those numbers would suggest the chief is being quite judicious in how he implements his weapons policy in a city of this size and complexity. He is not preventing people from bearing arms, he’s just trying to prevent Worcester from having a modern day gunfight at the OK Corral.